Mani Ram vs State of Haryana

Mehtab Singh Gill, J.

Mani Ram appellant was changed with the offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, on the accusation that on October 10, 1986, by abusing his position as a public servant, he obtained a sum of Rs. 400/ as illegal gratification from one Charan Singh.

The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. After the conclusion of trial, the appellant was convicted under Sections 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 161 of the Indian Penal Code by Special Judge, Karnal vide his judgment dated November 27, 1987 and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and six months rigorous imprisonment respectively. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Feeling dissatisfied with his conviction and sentence imposed upon him, he has filed this appeal.

The occurrence, in this case, relates to the year 1986 and it is alleged that the appellant had accepted Rs. 400/ as illegal gratification from Charan Singh Complainant when he was working as a Junior Engineer in the Haryana State Electricity Board. In such like cases, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses should be impeccable and inspire confidence Devi Singh, P.W. 7 who is the shadow witness did not toe the line of prosecution. He, in unequivocal terms stated that he was sitting aside and did not know if anything was applied to the currency notes which Charan Singh is alleged to have passed over to the police. He further stated that documents Exhibits PO, PQ and PR were signed by him but his signatures were obtained in the police station after the arrest of Mani Ram appellant whereas P.W. 10 Ram Parkash Inspector (since retired) stated that memos Exhibit PO vide which he took into possession for currency notes given by Charan Singh complainant, PQ regarding handing over those currency notes back to Charan Singh and PR regarding the personal search of Charan Singh complainant were prepared before the raid was conducted which were attested by Devi Singh and Charan Singh. Devi Singh further stated that when he and Charan Singh went to the office of Mani Ram appellant, he stood outside at a distance of 5 or 7 steps and did not see anything with his own eyes. He was declared hostile and crossexamined by the Public Prosecutor. he was confronted with the relevant portions of his statement Exhibit PS. He made the following statement in crossexamination :

"I do not know if the police recorded any statement of mine in connection with this case. I did not state before the police that Charan Singh produced four currency notes of Rs. 100/ each in my presence before the police and that the police noted their numbers on a memo after treating them with Phenolphthalein powder. I also did not state before the police that the police directed Charan Singh to hand over those currency notes to the accused if demanded, nor I stated that the Inspector returned those notes to Charan Singh after putting his initials. I did not state before the police that at the time of raid, Charan Singh gave currency notes of Rs. 400/ to Mani Ram accused which amount he put in the pocket of his bushirt after counting the same. I also did not state that I then made a signal to the police. Roshan Lal SDO came to the spot after the arrest of the accused. The accused was not searched in my presence nor currency notes Exhibits P1 to P4 were recovered from the pocket of his bushirt. Neither the currency notes nor the pocket of the bushirt nor the hands of the accused were got washed in my presence in solution of sodium carbonate. I did not state before the Police about these various washes and that the colour of the wash each time had turned pink. I also did not state that all these three, washes were separately sealed in three bottles."

P.W. 8 Roshan Lal, S.D.O. who is stated to be a recovery witness also did not support the prosecution case. He deposited that on October 10, 1986, one official in plan clothes of the Vigilance Department came to him and he accompanied him to the spot. That was the office of Mani Ram appellant. There he saw Mani Ram appellant standing by the side of his table. Four currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100/ each were lying on the table and the appellant had been caught hold of by his hands by two persons, one of whom was a Sikh gentleman and the other nonSikh. He categorically stated that those currency notes were not recovered from the pocket of the appellant in his presence.

This witness was also declared hostile and crossexamination. He was confronted with his statement Exhibit PT. He stated in his crossexamination as under :

"The police examined me about this case but did not record any formal statement of mine. I did not state before the police that search of the accused was taken in my presence and that from the pocket of his bushirt four currency notes of Rs. 100/, each were recovered."

P.W. 6 is the Complainant himself and P.W. 10 Inspector Ram Parkash is the Investigating Officer of this case. Both of them are interested in the success of the case. We are, therefore, left with the statement of P.W. 9 Bhupinder Singh but we cannot lose sight of the fact that P.W. 7 Devi Singh shadow witness and P.W. 8 have falsified the prosecution story.

Another snag in this case is that there is no evidence of initial demand of bribe by the appellant. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that Charan Singh was not present when the appellant is alleged to have visited the tubewell of this uncle or his father. Charan Singh complainant also admitted that it was his father who was present when the appellant visited their tubewell and the demand of bribe was made. This circumstance also weakens the prosecution case.

Moreover, there are material contradictions in the statements of P.W. 6 Charan Singh and P.W. 10 Inspector Ram Parkash. P.W. 6 Charan Singh stated in his crossexamination that he obtained a blank paper and a ballpen from the office of State Vigilance Bureau and wrote down a complaint while P.W. 10 Inspector Ram Parkash deposed that Charan Singh presented before him a complaint which had already been written. According to the evidence of other witnesses, the bottles were arranged from outside while Inspector Ram Parkash has stated in his crossexamination that he was carrying empty bottles in his investigation bag. These discrepancies cannot be termed as minor particularly when the shadow and recovery witnesses have turned hostile to the prosecution and did not support its case.

For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that the learned trial Court has completely erred in his appreciation of evidence, inasmuch as the version of the prosecution is not free from reasonable doubt. The finding of guilt is incompatible with the material on the record. The prosecution version as has been put forth during the trial does not show unimpeachability and the acceptance of the said version by the learned trial Judge exhibits the vulnerability of his reasonings. A conjoint appreciation of the evidence on the record would go a long way to show that the allegations are adroitly contrived and do not deserve acceptance.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from the discussion made above is that the case against the appellant is not free from doubt. Giving him the benefit of doubt, I accept this appeal, set aside his conviction and acquit him to the charge framed against him.

The bail bonds and surety bonds of the appellant, if any, are cancelled.